THE MANAGEMENT OF VANNIAR ESTATE Vs. KAMATCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal coming on for hearing on Wednesday the 25th day of April 1990 upon perusing the petition of Appeal, the order of the lower court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T.S. Gopalan, Advocate for the appellant, and of Mr. C. Smatharma Arasu, Govt. Advocate on behalf of the respondent No. 2, and the 1st respondent not appearing in person or by Advocate and having stood over for consideration till this day, he court made the following order: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai in W.C. Application No. 96/80 dated 28.7.1982, awarding a compensation of a sum of Rs. 18,000/- to the 1st respondent. W.C Application No. 96/80 is an application filed by the first respondent herein under Section 10 of the work-men's Compensation Act claiming compensation from the appellant herein on account of the death of the workman Kalimuthu by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the appellant.

(2.) THE case of the first respondent in W.C.A. N0. 96/80 is as follows:- She is the dependent of the deceased workman Kalimuthu, being his wife. The deceased worker was employed as a gardener in the bungalow of the estate manager. During the course of his employment in the garden he fell own and fainted. Subsequently he was taken to the estate hospital in an unconscious state and died there at 5 p.m. on 29.5.1980. The respondent claimed a lump sum compensation of Rs. 80,000/- for the death of her husband Kalimuthu by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment under the appellant herein.

(3.) THE Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation after considering the entire evidence on record held that the deceased Kalimuthu was a workman under the appellant herein. The Commissioner further held that the death of the workman Kalimuhu was on account of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Consequently the Commissioner held that the appellant herein is liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 18,000/- to the 1st respondent.